Double-anonymized Review

The International Community Health Journal (ICHJ) implements a stringent double-anonymized review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential from one another. Submissions that align with the journal's criteria are forwarded to at least two independent expert reviewers for an assessment of their scientific merit. The ultimate authority for the acceptance or rejection of articles lies with the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. In the rare case of delays, the Managing Editor may enlist the assistance of editorial board members to evaluate the submissions. Additionally, authors may be given the option to propose potential reviewers or to withdraw their manuscripts from consideration. It is essential to highlight that letters to the editor and editorials do not undergo peer review, as outlined in the Editorial Process and Section Policy.

To ensure the integrity of the double-anonymized review, authors must submit the following components separately:

• Title Page (with the authors’ details). It should include authors' names and affiliations (along with email addresses), acknowledgments, funding sources, a declaration of any conflicting interests, and the complete address for the corresponding author;
• Anonymized manuscript (no authors’ details). It contains the main body of the manuscript, references, figures, and tables without any identifying information about the authors or their affiliations;
• Supplementary materials are also subject to the peer review process.

Peer Review Process

Upon receiving an invitation to evaluate a journal article, each reviewer will be sent an email that includes hyperlinks to their responses. By selecting the appropriate hyperlink, the reviewer communicates their ability to undertake the review to the journal's editorial office. If the reviewer agrees to the task, they will have the opportunity to download the manuscript and fill out a Manuscript Review Form, which generally permits a narrative response.

Reviewers are expected to deliver an impartial and thorough evaluation of the manuscript, considering aspects such as the study's concept, its relevance to contemporary scientific understanding, the scientific content, as well as the language and grammar used. Comments containing offensive language are strictly prohibited.

Each reviewer is required to submit a preliminary recommendation concerning the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript; however, the final decision is made by the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The possible outcomes of this decision include:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is considered appropriate for publication without the need for further revisions and can move forward to the copyediting phase.
• Revisions Required: Minor adjustments are necessary, which can be assessed and approved by the editor.
• Resubmit for Review: Significant revisions are required, necessitating an additional round of peer review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not align with the journal's focus and scope and may be better suited for another publication.
• Decline or Reject Submission: The manuscript exhibits considerable deficiencies and is not appropriate for publication in the journal.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, outlining the essential principles and standards that all peer reviewers are required to follow throughout the peer review process.

Peer reviewers are also expected to:

• Only accept manuscripts for review if they possess the requisite subject expertise to conduct a thorough assessment and can provide timely evaluations.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process, refraining from disclosing any manuscript details or reviews beyond what the journal has made public.
• Avoid using information acquired during the peer-review process for personal gain, to benefit any individual or organisation, or to harm or discredit others.
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest and consult the journal if there is uncertainty regarding whether a particular interest is relevant.
• Be objective and constructive in their evaluations, steering clear of hostility or inflammatory comments, as well as defamatory or insulting personal remarks.
• Acknowledge that peer review is fundamentally a reciprocal process and commit to fulfilling their fair share of reviews in a timely manner.
• Provide ICHJ with accurate personal and professional information that accurately reflects their expertise.
• Recognize that impersonating another individual during the review process constitutes a severe violation.

In addition, allegations or instances of suspected misconduct are examined in accordance with the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines to the extent feasible.